Let me start by saying I am not one who has complained on here and maybe I am not now. With that being said this latest war matching has me stumped. Our opponents war score is significantly higher and the rest looks pretty clear to me. We enjoy a hearty battle and don’t mind losing a close match. I love war and have never left one flag on the battlefield but this is an impossible task! If anyone can make some kind of logical sense out of this matchup I would love to hear it, their troops are also leveled up super high so I don’t think that they have a lack of depth. That would be the only feasible explanation but won’t be able to figure that out till the actual war.
10% war score difference is on the high side, but I have seen it before. Give the difference in the number of alliance members, I’m willing to bet some of their players are opted out. The question will be which ones.
@anc1ent1 This sounds like it might be similar to your other thread discussing substantial changes in War Score between matchmaking and thereafter:
Is this a continuation of the same sort of issue?
Or is it just a relatively poor match, like those discussed here?
Or it could be what @General_Confusion suggested, that it’s a function of the alliance members who are opted in/out.
Thanks for your reply I guess I hope so I looked up their individual players and I believe it was nine or 10 of them are ranked in the top 100,000 compared to three of us and you can see by the screenshots that they are way higher as far as levels. We are going to give them hell but got a bad feeling about this one LOL I sure hope you are right
2 players missing in weaker alliance so aliance and war score seems to be with big different but it is not. War can be winned thanks weaker players in opponents alliance not only thanks those strongs one.
I took at peek at their alliance, sometimes you can tell who will be missing because they have been offline for a few days. I didn’t see that in this case. I hope I’m right and a few have opted out. It would be odd indeed to be matched against a higher war score and have fewer opted in member. The penalty for having more players opted in should prevent that.
Good luck! Let us know what the field looks like once the war starts.
That first post was closer to war and this one I screenshot it right after matchmaking, i’m really not complaining because I understand that sometimes you win sometimes you lose but unless several of them are opted out in their top 15 , I just don’t see us having a chance we’re just not that strong yet. I appreciate your reply
I definitely will 20 …
It’ll be interesting to see what your experience with the actual War is, then. I wonder if it’ll prove to feel like as much of a mismatch, or if it’s like @General_Confusion suggested that it’s an issue of what portion of the score is relevant based on opt-ins.
Keep us updated!
I promise I will follow up after war which should be Thursday ? If someone thinks about it and I forget let me know. I don’t go by anc1ent1 Because I am young and remember everything LOL
I saw it, too. They have 2 more members. My guess, is two of their members have opted out in the War, accounting for some of the difference of the actual war.
Otherwise, you have similar titan scores, which means your alliance is doing more with less, and they have trophies of two extra people.
Make sense we take a lot a newer members and try to have fun and be competitive and support each other so I think it I’ll be OK, I appreciate your response Kayo
Said I would get back to this I still think it was poor matchmaking. I mean that’s OK things happen, they had 27 members with flags versus our 25 no one opted out once matchmaking started on our team. Not to mention they are heavy hitters. I would not take away anything from them because most of them have played over a year. They are a Force and appear to have worked hard to get there! Just think that this was a mismatch from the get go. That’s just the way the cookie crumble‘s@zephyr1 @General_Confusion
You’re right, sounds like it wasn’t a great match. But thanks for the update.
Matchmaking has been very fair from the second to last update, again this is a rare mismatch and no one on our alliance is going to lose sleep over it. It’s a game
That’s a good approach to it, and one that plenty of people don’t seem to share, unfortunately.
Sadly we don’t know the exact war score used for matching, but this still seems off. If they have more people there should be a penalty applied to their score and I doubt they climbed from a lower war score to 10% higher war score than you right after matchmaking.
Too much weight is given to the “previous performance” part of the equation. We won two wars in a row vs stronger teams only because they left a large number of flags. This war we are getting destroyed by an even larger team that has a 1k point lead and 80 flags left.
Forget the talk of a ladder system. Matchmaking is based on socialist ideology and is striving for everyone to be at .500.
Toss the “recent performance” and let the cream rise based on how well they perform; not be penalized with unwinnable wars because they’re better organized.
I don’t believe that is true based on the better than 7- percent win rate we are seeing. However, even if it is true it wouldn’t be applicable to this situation.
Alliance War Matchups are currently based on:
- Top 30 heroes of each player in both alliances
- Top 5 heroes (weighted)
- Top troops
- Total number of players of both alliances
- Wins/losses record of both alliances
It is NOT based on:
- Alliance Score
- Titan Score
- Trophy/Cup Score
- Player level
- Socialist ideology
Sorry, you made me smile.